Non Political

Joseph,

Would you please explain how we go from Rabbi Millers proof for the existence of G-D that you quoted in the OP to the proper conception of G-D that you quoted a couple of posts back?

@ beee
“i think that there are ways to prove G-d in this world but there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature. So yes, everything really douse come down to having emuna!!”

I think you meant to say: there are people that will rather take clear proofs that there is not a G-d running the world and explain it according to nature

If that is what you meant to say it’s incompetent. There are no such proofs, not even fuzzy ones and certainly not clear ones. Not even the most ardent avowed atheist / materialist has proposed PROOFS for non existence.

@ Zahavas Dad

“Why is it OK to question Chabad on messanism , but not OK to question Satmar on Anti-Zionism?”

Surely you do know it is a matter of historical record that anti-zionism was / is a mainstream position among the Gedolim. The issue of contention is a matter of degree and tactics. (Before all the tzionim on here start listing names of Gedolim who where not anti-zionist or neutral on the issue notice I said mainstream to all.) Chabbad mashichistism (even mashichistism-lite) certainly was / is not mainstream. Lo matzinu lai chaver outside of Chabbad and even within Chabbad it is a matter of dispute (see posts by Sechel HaYashar on the relevant thread(s).

The above quote from Rabbi Miller is an example of a version of the fine tuning argument.

Even if you would accept the fine tuning argument at best its utility is against the position of randomness. What’s the next step? Most world religions would accept this argument as would the classic philosophers yet their conception of G-D is certainly false.

When (most people) ask for proof of the existence of G-D what they really mean is proof of The G-D who gave US laws, runs (present tense) OUR world, hears OUR prayers.

It is Yitzias Mitzraim and the Revelation at Sinai that is the only rational evidence of revelation. And it is through revelation that we know everything else. Post revelation a study of our unique history as the chosen recipients of the Torah is also relevant evidence.

@ DovidBT

“An atheist could argue that everything in the above post can be explained by science”

1) What someone “can argue” is not relevant. Ever. A “could argue” without positive evidence is a very weak position and not worthy of a response.

2) Explaining the mechanism by which natural events occur is not an argument against the existence of G-D. It is a straw man argument built on the false premise that believers have no positive evidence for the existence of G-D and use Him to explain what is (was) to them otherwise inexplicable phenomena.

It is also worth pointing out that essentially Emuna is the natural experience we are endowed with by our Creator. Rational argumentation is a tool we use against the the olam hagashmi, the yetzer ha-ra, the culture of the umos haolam, and our own sins which obstruct / corrupt this experience. See Kuzari shar aleph. Also see HaRav Aaron Feldmans excellent article in the latest issue of Dialogue.

@ Jakob

“but don’t fool yourselves. ask yourself are you looking forward to the weekly family restaurant date & each week count the days down towards it or is it a pleasure & mitzva to make your family happy?”

If I look forward to the dessert at my friends chassuna, for which I drove 3 hours so that I can be meshtatef in his simcha, surely you aren’t saying that my intent for attending his simcha was the dessert!

I’m sure you are also not saying that we are not meant to davka avoid deriving pleasure from from the very things we are created to experience pleasure from.

Consider the machlokis tana’im on the matter of why a Nazir brings a korbon for being choteh al ha-nefish. Is it because he withheld permissible pleasure from himself and it is sufficient what the Torah forbade? Is it because he is bringing himself from a higher level of kedusha to a lower level by ending his term of prishus? Is it both?

Also, consider the Yerushalmi that a person will have to answer for what he had an opportunity to derive pleasure from and doesn’t.

Obviously, making pleasure seeking ones goal in life is contrary to Yidishkeit. Intent matters.But it cuts both ways. You can use the Yerushalmi to become a baal taiva and you can use prishus to become a baal gaiva.

Also, maintaining awareness of our purpose for being in this world and working on our midos are not matters that are lefnai meshuras hadin left to chassidim and baalai musser. They are incumbent on every single yid.

@benignuman
“No faith or belief in the world has lasting power without evidence. We may also have evidence against their claims, the evidence may be fabricated, or we may dismiss their claims because prior assumptions, but the claims themselves will have evidence to support them.”

Really? Then you know something about christanity that the catholic church doesn’t. The hold that to believe the ikrai emmuna of their theology requires a leap of faith and is not evidence based. There staying power hasn’t suffered much due to the lack of evidence.

If we say about any issue that times have changed and the Torah therefore means something different, than there is absolutely nothing absolute in the Torah. Why can we not say that Kashrus, Shabbos or any other mitzvah is irrelevant today (or means something totally different than what Judaism traditionally explains it to mean,) since times have changed? The only true response to that is that the Torah transcends time and was written to all generations.

You do understand the difference betweeen keeping kosher which involves the fulfillment of actual Mitzvos and disciplining children which is a means to an end…

I know a couple that when they first got married took an example from a very chashuv family that using petch as a form of discpline was the excepted norm. Now, these very special people are the epitome of Torah and Chessed. I don’t think I ever saw the father raise his voice or so much as lose his calm. There approach was right for them. To make a long story short The newly married couple should never have adopted this approach. They do not have the same midos. As it has already been pointed out above, hitting another yid when a constructive chinuch purpose is not being served is a Torah prohibition. It’s an act of violence. A person who has not successfully overcome the mida of anger and is not able to remain totally calm in a stressful situations should not potch.

But to say that “it’s NEVER ok to hit a child” and to consider petch as categorically abusive is just adopting current Western ideologies. Nebach.

@GAON

It doesn’t have to be Chassidus you can learn Mahral and others for that.

+1

Also,

Yes, it is extremely important to fight against acculturation to Western values. At the same time we have to be ever mindful to not allow our position to become determined by our adversaries. We have to be ever vigilant lest in our righteous war against Western values we adopt anti secularist positions that are rooted in non Jewish philosophy / theology. This is an insidious form of acculturation and an easy trap to fall into.

“I don’t understand this- you are saying that Leah was not a tzadekes because she was a BT?
How was she different from her sister Rochel who grew up in the same home as she did?“

There is the “Tzadik Gamur” and the “Baal Teshuva” This does not end with Rachel and Leah it is a theme that continues through the unique Avodah of the Bnai Rachel and Bnai Leah (Yosef and Yehuda) down to Shaul and Dovid and beyond (ultimately to Mashiach Ben Yossef and Machiach Ben Dovid. I recently read a nice work elaborating on this subject.

It is astounding that Gedolhadorah, Sam2 , and Binyanadead think that they can simply shlug up the Mishnah Brura and Chatam Sofer based on their own interpretation of the Gemora and Shulchan Aruch.
1. The Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch are discussing the fact that women have an obligation to fulfill the obligation of lighting menorah because they where included in the nes. What does that have to do with the fulfillment of the households unit of mhadrim min hamihadrin l’daat haRambam?
2. The Mishna Brura was reporting the normative custom he was not being mchadish it. The M”B (and the Chatam Sofer) where giving an explanation for the widespread practice of women not lighting. Widespread practice when upheld by the Gedolim Sets Halachic precedent. The chidush is to have women and girls light. If you follow accepted Poskim who held they have enough of a Halachic basis to break with the normative custom (Rabbi Solovaichik quoted above) fine but don’t try to revise reality.

@DovidBT

What you wrote does not contradict what I wrote. The SAID (specific adaptation to imposed demand) principal bears out your point. Yes, the cardiovascular adaptation to long duration cardio is specific to that demand. And the adaptation to high intensity cardio is specific to that demand. You cannot dance at all weddings at the same time as the adaptations are not compatable beyond very basic fitness levels. For most people a well designed strength training program combined with walking on non lifting days for active recovery yields the most useful adaptations
-increased strength base
-increased bone density
-adequate cardiovascular adaptations for non long duration athletes
-adequate mobility and balance for non dancers / gymnasts

Sorry this Is a bit late but this subject is close to my heart.

For under $700.00 (one time cost) you can get a Oly barbell, iron plates, and a squat rack. Get a competent Strength coach to teach you how to perform the basic barbell lifts safely and put together a simple program built around progressing the basic lifts.

Walk on your non lifting days

No gym required. In fact the above is more effective for your health then most anything else you can do in a gym. Not to mention most efficient from a time management point of you.

@ gadolhadorah

This poster has constantly fawned on degrees and advanced degrees…

It’s funny but my wife who runs a babysitting service out of our home
– makes more money then many of her friends with degrees
– provides a part time parnassa for her 2 assistants
– has control of the environment she is in on a day to day basis
– has more social interactions throughout the day then she did at her (very boring) office job
– we get an awesome deduction on the majority of the home expenses which is being used by my wife’s business.

I heard once Rabbi Gottlieb say bshem the Hazon Ish
“Some people have 613 Mitzvot and some people have 613 challenges…”

@ AviK

Did you really use the GR”A as an example to make your point?! Please see the introductory to Chai Adam written by the Gaons son in law. Also see what his sons wrote in their intro to Shulchan Aruch.

As for the Rambam. You are aware that he was supported by his brother for years while he sat and learned Torah FULL TIME. This. Ended when his brother perished on a business trip and the Rambam lost this means of support. See the Rambams letter to Rabbenu Yonitan M’Lunil that secular studies where never regarded by him as more then handmaidens to the Torah.

@ Joseph

“Now if he brings proofs against Satmar Rov/Debrecener Rov/Rav Vozner’s Psaks AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, then there might be something to talk about.”

You are 100% correct. At that point (don’t hold your breath) their opinion would be nidcheh and we would consider someone who is machmir a chossid shotteh and a hedyot. Until them it remains a machlokis.

@ iacsrmma
“For those who are makpid on CY, your rants that CS is equivalent to CA are not accepted by those who eat/drink CS.”

I am makpid to use only CY.

@ Joseph

“If one is a member of a community or congregation that holds that Cholov Stam is Cholov Akum mamish, then eating CS is absolutely no different than eating CA, and carries the same negative spiritual consequences”

Sorry. Halacha does not exist in a bubble. Even if a particular Posek is machmir for himself and his congregation. Even if he thinks HaRav Moshe’s Psak is an error. The issue remains categorically a dispute among the Poskim (about a din d’rebonon by the way). He can disagree but he cannot pretend Rav Moshe’s psak doesn’t exist.

Now if he brings proofs against Rav Moshe’s Psak AND those proofs are deemed adequate by a majority of contemparary Poskim, AND it becomes the prevalent custom, then there might be something to talk about.

Until such time that Rav Moshe’s Psak becomes nidche (don’t hold your breath) nobody has the right to say that someone who is eating chalav Stam dairy products is eating trief mamash.

And yes I am aware that the issur of consuming non kosher is unique (its mitamtem halev, causes our very selves to become defiled, etc.

@ Slominer
This has been “getting worked out” for the past almost 25 years since the Lubavitcher Rebbe zichrona tzaddik l’vrocha’s petira. I don’t think giving it more time will much change the disputed dynamics.

These things take time, 25 years is but a drop in the bucket. Eventually there will be closure on this issue. It’s not up to us how much time to give it.

@SH
If you can question the Rebbes integrity, I can question Rav Shachs as well. If you won’t question his integrity, but will only give criticism, I’ll do the same.
I was under the impression that Gedolim weren’t infallible, and questioning their integrity was not off limits.

There is a Halacha that prohibits you from questioning the integrity / motives of a Tamud Chacham. How does the fact that someone else does it make it permissible?

Also, why do you keep equating not being infallible to a lack of integrity. This is an overt error in logic and you just repeated it twice.

There are 2 paths here.

Path One. The Talmudai Chochamin among Chabbad will interpret the teachings of Lubavitcher Rebbe in a way that is in line with normative Judaism. They will do this even when it means saying an interpretation which is forced. They will also guide their talmidim to a more integrative approach with the rest of Klal Yisroel. They will do this because they are true Talmudai Chochamim, are amailim B’Torah, and we know that in the end the light of the Torah will bring them to good.

Path 2 is self evident to anyone who has been following this thread.

While this is getting worked out there is going to be good, sincere people who will be honestly confused.

@RSo
Glad you o see your back. I want to apologize again for taking such a condescending tone in my response to your earlier post.

@ SH

And Rav Vosner, who was the Gadol HaDor at least in the Chassidishe velt

HaRav Vosner was regarded as a Gadol in the whole of Klal Yisroel. Are you aware of any Litvish Rav or Rosh HaYesiva who did not consider HaRav Vosner a Gadol?

@SH
While we’re talking about different Gedolim, I want to add, that one of the major Poskei Doreinu, the Shevet HaLevi, Harav Hagaon Rav Vosner z”l, was an admirer of the Rebbe and Chassidus Chabad in general.

We wher not just talking about different Gedolim. You asked for a list of 3 Gedolim who opposed the Rebbe. This was provided.

What is the relevance of this post of yours other then smoke and mirrors? You appear to be attempting to deflect the fact that there where Gedolim who came out against the Lubavitcher Rebbe by quoting a Gadol who held of him.

@CS

I wrote:
” It was (and is) and disagreement regarding what you is the best meathod of Harbatzas Torah.”

You responded:
Not really. Both are necessary. Many leaders of klal yisroel focused on a specific segment of klal yisroel and engaged in one or the other.The Rebbe, as Nossi hador, was responsible for the wellbeing of every Jew, so engaged in both our whatever was necessary.

It may well be your contention that both are necessary. And I will even grant you that this is not uniquely a Chabbad position. Other Gedolim have certainly expressed support and admiration for the Shluchus program. But it is a matter of FACT that there where (are) others who:
1. Disagree with such an approach altogether for multiple reasons.
2. Hold that regardless of if such an approach is correct or not available resources should be channeled to the other approach.

Can you please tell us what these controversial psokim are?
And who argued with them.

Are you truly not aware of any psokim and teachings that where unique to The Lubavitcher Rebbe and where viewed as controversial that you are asking me this question?

I said that I am not aware of any Gedolim who supported etc. Not arguing and supporting are 2 different things. Surely you realize this.